cience, value and material decay in the conservation of historicnvironments
achel Douglas-Jonesa, John J. Hughesb,∗, Siân Jonesc, Thomas Yarrowd
Technologies in Practice Research Group, IT University of Copenhagen, Rued Langgaards Vej 7, 2300 Copenhagen, DenmarkSchool of Engineering and Computing, University of the West of Scotland, Paisley Campus, Scotland PA1 2BE, United KingdomSchool of Arts, Languages and Cultures, University of Manchester, Manchester, England M13 9PL, United KingdomAnthropology, Durham University, Dawson Building, South Road, Durham, England DH1 3LE, United Kingdom
a r t i c l e i n f o
rticle history:eceived 5 August 2015ccepted 18 March 2016vailable online 19 April 2016
eywords:alueualitative research
a b s t r a c t
The historic environment undergoes cycles of material deterioration, and these processes have a pow-erful impact on the meanings and values associated with it. In particular, decay informs the experienceof authenticity, as a tangible mark of age and ‘the real’. This article examines the intersection betweenmaterial transformation, scientific intervention and cultural value. Drawing on qualitative social researchat three Scottish historic buildings, we show that there are a complex range of cultural values and qual-ities associated with material transformation. Furthermore, we highlight how the use of science-basedconservation to characterise, and intervene in, processes of material transformation can affect these val-
cience and technologyuthenticityecay
ues and qualities. We argue that it is necessary and important to consider the cultural ramifications ofsuch interventions alongside their material effects. This requires a case-by-case approach, because thecultural values and qualities associated with material transformation are context-specific and vary withdifferent kinds of monuments and materials. We conclude with a series of recommendations aimed atintegrating humanities and science-based approaches to transformation in the historic environment.
Stone, brick and mortar are the most widespread materials mak-ng up the historic-built environment throughout Europe, and toarying degrees in other parts of the world. In this article, we look athe vulnerabilities of such masonry materials to deterioration andecay, and the ways in which heritage science interventions inter-ect with the range of cultural values and qualities associated withuch material transformation. The core of our argument is that thessessment of values associated with material transformation – andhe scope and potential effects of scientific intervention – requires
case-by-case approach. The specific values and qualities asso-iated with material transformation are complex, situational andontextual. Consequently, it is not possible to identify simple rules
r models that can be applied universally across different heritageites, even in cases where the same processes of material trans-ormation are at work. Instead, qualitative social research should
be used to explore how material transformation is involved in thecreation and negotiation of values at specific historic buildings andmonuments. Our arguments are based on research carried out atthree case study sites in Scotland, during 2013–14. This researchshows that material transformation is associated with a wide rangeof overlapping attitudes and values amongst both heritage profes-sionals and visiting publics. Furthermore, there is no basis for apriori distinctions between forms of decay that are positively val-ued and those that are considered undesirable. Our analysis revealsthat values associated with material transformation are informedby complex relations between materials, decay processes, types ofmonument, visitor expectations, forms of expertise and demandson use. In our conclusions, we examine the implications of theresearch project, and provide recommendations for practitionersin navigating the changing face of value-oriented conservation.
Collaboration between the sciences and the humanities iscentral to the AHRC Science and Heritage research project under-pinning this article (www.uws.ac.uk/mavproject/). The researchteam has expertise in heritage science (Hughes, PI), cultural her-
itage (Jones) and social anthropology (Douglas-Jones and Yarrow).Working in partnership with the National Trust for Scotland andHistoric Scotland, our case studies extend the range of this inter-disciplinary dialogue, incorporating heritage professionals with
article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
ackgrounds in architecture, conservation, heritage management,ngineering and a range of different kinds of heritage science. Atakeholder workshop also proved a fruitful context for interdis-iplinary discussion and debate. Previous ethnographic researcharried out with Historic Scotland between 2010 and 2013 [1] alsonforms the arguments presented in this article.
In advancing interdisciplinary understandings of the valuesttached to material transformation in the historic environment,e pay specific attention to how these inform, and are informed
y scientific interventions. We define heritage science broadly asnything involving the application of scientific methods for mea-uring change, analysing materials, protecting them from decay,nd consolidating vulnerable components [2,3]. This encompasses
common distinction between applications of science to advancingnderstanding (of both material change and heritage environ-ents), and intervening to modify, manage, or arrest material
hange [3]. The latter area is sometimes referred to as ‘conservationcience’ [4] and includes both preventive conservation based on sci-ntific understandings of agencies and processes of deteriorationsometimes referred to as ‘environmental conservation’), as wells remedial conservation, which may include adding or removingaterials using techniques originally developed through scientific
esearch.
. Research context
Masonry materials are vulnerable to deterioration and decaynder the influence of a variety of physical and chemical agencies.
Weathering’ encapsulates a range of processes driven by mois-ure movement, driving rain, freeze-thaw cycles, salt crystallisationnd chemical attack from pollutants [5,6]. Biofilms can have a sig-ificant impact on historic masonry, including staining, moistureovement and physical stresses [7]. Climatic variability also brings
bout change to physical environmental conditions, for instancencreased rainfall exacerbates water ingress and increased biolog-cal growth [8,9].
In conservation contexts, responses to these forms of mate-ial degradation often result in steps to measure, record, protect,nd/or repair historic buildings and monuments. There is a longnd continuing tradition of regular repair and maintenance usingraditional craft techniques and materials. However, the develop-
ent of heritage science during the twentieth century has led to thentroduction of new techniques for measuring change, analysing
aterials, protecting them from decay and consolidating vulner-ble components [2,3,10]. For instance, petrographic analysis issed for characterisation and the determination of provenance.iocides have been developed for the management of biofilms.ore recently, the potential of self-cleaning surface treatments andater repellents is being explored [11]. Nanotechnological consoli-ants even promise the possibility of consolidation and restorationhrough the creation of new fabric [12]. As a result of these tech-iques, the nature of historic buildings and monuments, and theirynamic relations with their physical environments, is altered toome degree, whether directly or indirectly. For instance, rates ofeathering can be modified and signs of wear and age removed.istoric fabric can also be removed and new material introduced.ut what of the impact of such science-based interventions on howeritage sites are experienced and valued?
Heritage conservation and management is a complex processnvolving not only physical fabric, but also cultural, aesthetic,piritual, social and economic values [13–15]. Indeed, a recenteport from the Getty Conservation Institute asserts that “the ulti-
ate aim of conservation is not to conserve material for its own
ake but, rather, to maintain (and shape) the values embodied byhat heritage” ([16]: 7, our emphasis). Furthermore, understand-ngs of authenticity and significance in conservation philosophy
ral Heritage 21 (2016) 823–833
have undergone radical change over the last three decades, withincreasing emphasis on the intangible aspects of heritage places[17,18]. Nevertheless, the materials making up historic buildingsand monuments, and the transformations they undergo over time,are integral to the values produced in relation to them. Stone isvalued for its aesthetic properties, being characterised by an out-standing range of colours, textures, and state of finish, whilst itsbulk lends itself to elaborate moulding and carving. Its durabil-ity is valued, but equally weathering and wear often contributeto perceived ‘character’. In the European conservation movement,such material transformation has been seen as important testimonyto the passage of time and the authenticity of a monument. Thevalue of transformation in this sense was epitomised by the Roman-tic ideal of the mediaeval ruin created at the hand of nature [19], andformalised by Alois Riegl [20] in the concept of ‘age value’ whereinvisible decay and disintegration of material fabric embodied thepassage of time, the age of the material affected, and was immedi-ately and aesthetically accessible. Decay and disintegration are alsocentral to the concept of patina and its associated aesthetic quali-ties of harmony and beauty ([21]: 435–437; [19]: 148–182; [22]).Patina therefore has come to refer not only to physical changes –dents, chips, oxidisation – but also qualitative experiences of thesechanges within an aesthetic register. Mortars, renders and plas-ters, whilst often less durable than stone itself, and intentionallysubject to greater renewal over time, can also enhance or detractfrom assessments of age value and authenticity.
Despite long-standing recognition of the values surroundingageing, decay, patina and ruination, there has been relatively littleresearch in this specific area [21,23,24]. Conservation approachesincreasingly emphasise the need to conserve the values embodiedin heritage, as much as historic material itself [16]. This requiresgreater attention to the way in which these values enter into con-servation decision-making. Conservators are often acutely aware ofthe value of patina, although Clifford [25] has nevertheless calledfor more investigation into its cultural significance. In contrast, thenature of experimental investigation means that heritage scientistsoften extract materials, properties and processes from their phys-ical and social context. While there are wide-ranging and detailedstudies of the impact of scientific techniques on the material fabricitself, there has been little investigation into their impact on cul-tural meanings and values. Indeed, it could be argued that muchapplied research has been driven by specific scientific frameworks,with limited consideration of possible impacts on issues of authen-ticity and historic value. As Cassar ([26]: 9) emphasises, we needto understand how values are affected by material change. Yet,we also need to ask how science-based approaches for measur-ing, analysing and modifying material transformation impact onthe values of heritage? Furthermore, how do the values associatedwith material transformation, and the wider cultural significanceof heritage, impact on the use of heritage science? To answer thesequestions, it is necessary to draw on humanities-based methodolo-gies.
3. Methods
Qualitative social research methods are increasingly used inheritage management to provide evidence for value-based conser-vation and significance assessment [1,17,27,28]. These methods,including semi-structured interviews and participant observation,are particularly suited for examining the complex meanings andvalues that surround historic buildings and monuments [29]. How-ever, they are rarely employed to understand the values and
qualities specifically associated with the scientific managementof material transformation. In our research, we used participantobservation and interviewing to gain insight into the values associ-ated with material transformation and the use of heritage science at
f Cultu
tOpbpmtar
bTCsfaomii
aTeciosItstiasaibscFad
4
raowmebcwrasauToog
R. Douglas-Jones et al. / Journal o
hree heritage sites. Research of this kind is necessarily contextual.ur methodology is underpinned by the assumption that the wayseople seek to understand and give meaning to the world have toe understood in relation to the contexts in which they come intolay. This contextual approach necessarily involves an inductiveethodology: while we established a set of research questions at
he outset, the form and shape of subsequent investigations werelso informed (and modified) through ongoing consultations withesearch partners and participants.
The three case studies we focus on in this article were providedy our research partners, Historic Scotland (HS) and the Nationalrust for Scotland (NTS): Dryburgh Abbey; Skelmorlie Aisle; andharles Rennie Mackintosh’s Hill House. Each of these sites waselected because it has significant conservation issues resultingrom material transformation, with associated scientific researchnd/or intervention. They also allow us to explore the interactionsf a range of variables, including: (i) different building types andaterials; (ii) site-specific conservation problems, approaches and
nterventions (including different scientific approaches); (iii) vary-ng constellations of stakeholder interests, values and opinions.
Field research was conducted between March and July 2013,nd consisted of interviews with heritage professionals and visitors.he anthropological method of ‘participant observation’ was alsomployed, involving sustained systematic observation of relevantontexts, to ascertain how social values and practices are drawnnto everyday interactions. This technique was used in a rangef situations, including laboratories and workshops, during con-ervation meetings, site inspections, and guided tours for visitors.nitial discussions and conversations at the case study sites formedhe basis for subsequent in-depth interviews, which explored con-ervation practices, decision-making, and attitudes to materialransformation. A range of heritage professionals were interviewed,ncluding heritage scientists (mainly with geo-materials expertise),pplied stone conservators, preventative conservators, managers,tonemasons, and architects. Interviews were transcribed andnalysed using qualitative data analysis software, NVivo. Shorternformal interviews were also conducted with visitors, and visitorooks consulted, to explore their expectations associated with eachite, their perceptions of how the material fabric of buildings washanging, and how they felt about forms of scientific intervention.or each of the case study sites, a systematic literature review waslso undertaken, focusing on key conservation and managementocuments, as well as associated scientific reports.
. Material transformation and the production of value
The research results provide evidence for a broad range ofesponses to material transformation and views on how it could,nd should, be managed. Many of our interviewees over the coursef the study expressed positive values associated with ageing,eathering and decay. For most visitors to the case study sites,arks of age, weathering and decay played an important role in
stablishing the authenticity, significance and aesthetic appeal ofuildings and monuments, as identified by Riegl and Ruskin over aentury ago. As one German visitor to Dryburgh put it, “I wouldn’tant any new things. They should try to keep it as it is. We like
uins, there is a mystification and respect for the projects of ourncestors.” Similarly, a Canadian tourist stressed, “we like to seeome decay, to see the age of a building”. Some visitors, whensked in more detail about material transformation, focused partic-larly on surface wear, which they sometimes referred to as ‘patina’.
he impact of human activity, such as wear on the tread of a stairr a bannister, might also be particularly valued as an indicatorf authenticity, the passage of time and a sense of connection toenerations past [17,21].
ral Heritage 21 (2016) 823–833 825
Professionals involved in managing and conserving historicbuildings and monuments expressed similar views on the positivevalue of certain kinds of material transformation. As one propertymanager put it, “I think of the surface of an object, or a material,that’s been laid down over time. . . It’s important, for most of us,in the pleasure of looking at this thing”. Age was also valued as amark of authenticity by our professional interviewees, as expressedby this architect:
I went to Abbotsford* recently, and they hadn’t cleaned all thelichen off the stonework and that patina I thought added a lot tothe appreciation of the building as being one of the early 19thcentury. It had been there for that length of time. (*19thC dwellingof the author Walter Scott, near to Dryburgh)
For most heritage professionals, their approach to the man-agement of material transformation was also framed by theiranticipation of the value visitors might attach to it. Thus, in consid-ering conservation strategies and reaching decisions with theircolleagues, heritage professionals frequently considered how theirwork would be seen and what kind of ‘public’ reactions they wouldencounter, although visitors were rarely directly consulted.
Material transformation certainly produces qualities that arevalued in positive ways, but it is also associated with the prospec-tive loss of the historic building or monument itself. Most heritageprofessionals recognise a version of the dilemma articulatedby Lowenthal ([19]: 126): while decay undermines authenticitythrough destruction of fabric, conservation can also undermineauthenticity through artificially arresting valued forms of mate-rial transformation associated with ageing. Here, a moral dutyand accompanying responsibility is placed firmly in the hands ofthose who look after heritage sites: ‘if they don’t get it right’, com-mented one visitor ‘the thing is going to go, and it’s gone forever,for future generations’. In turn, heritage professionals internalisedthis moral duty, as one put it: ‘If we don’t stop the decay, we’lllose the monument’. Those interviewees who discussed ‘decay’ and‘patina’ directly often placed the two terms on a spectrum of mate-rial transformations, distinguished by the speed and depth of theprocess, as well as the degree of threat associated with it. As oneproperty manager explained, patina can be managed from a stateof being ‘aged’ and aesthetically attractive, to “a point where sud-denly you go, but now it’s detrimental to the fabric”. However,there is considerable variation in terms of how material trans-formation is valued and when it is deemed harmful. Moreover,different perspectives often relate to different kinds of expertise,and the forms of skilled vision and practice associated with them[1].
For most professionals, heritage science is recognised as havinga very important role in terms of investigating and understand-ing material transformation. As one preventative conservator putit, ‘science is already doing a lot, with thermography, X-ray diffrac-tion, environmental monitoring, petrographic studies. It is buildingup the picture of what you have’. Scientific evidence research wasconsidered important in meeting the obligation for an evidence-based approach: ‘we can justify our decisions because they arebased on observation, and research’. At the same time, our inter-views revealed a widely held view, amongst architects and heritagemanagers in particular, that scientific research should not be theonly means by which a building is understood or valued. Fur-thermore, new kinds of intervention based on heritage science,such as consolidants and coatings, aroused greater ambivalence.For many heritage professionals, the unknown consequences ofnew treatments are a source of concern, and laboratory testing
is not seen as a substitute for ‘real-world’ conditions. The con-cern expressed relates ultimately to the issue of authenticity, andthe perceived negative impact of materials that are regarded as‘artificial’.
8 f Cultural Heritage 21 (2016) 823–833
lIoitrwaectma
ciiraitibietaIrttttpo
5
5
bitsrsi
m6rsownDwtHy
va
Fig. 1. Early Gothic (12–13th C) rounded arch doorway at the remains of DryburghAbbey, Scottish Borders. This doorway is the south entrance to the Choir, adjacent
wall decoration in Scotland, painted with tempera onto lime plas-ter (Fig. 2). However, it has been at risk for some time fromwater ingress from above and high air humidity. Interventions
Fig. 2. Part of the mediaeval painted ceiling in the Chapter House at Dryburgh Abbey,Scottish Borders, showing details around the east-facing window. The surviving dec-
26 R. Douglas-Jones et al. / Journal o
In turn, visitors’ perceptions of sites, are mediated in more oress direct ways by scientifically based understandings of them.nformation conveying the findings of scientific investigations isften positively valued, being taken as a sign of ‘care’. These find-ngs also directly mediate understandings of the authenticity, bothhrough positive identification of original fabric, but also throughesults that can sometimes undermine the visitor experience ofhat is genuine. For visitors, scientifically derived and industri-
lly produced materials were often equated with ‘artificiality’, therosion of the valued ‘naturalness’ of monuments. As one Ameri-an religious tourist put it, ‘There is something powerful in knowinghat the stone mason’s work of 800 years ago is still here on its own
erits. It would be. . . <he grimaces> to know it’s been propped uprtificially, or by chemistry’.
The research thus confirms that material transformation is asso-iated with a range of positive values, but that it is also associatedn a negative sense with the ultimate loss of both the historic objecttself and the values associated with it. For the subjects of ouresearch, the use of science for prevention and understanding wasssociated with a different set of meanings, compared to the morenterventionist use of science in remedial techniques. In relation tohe former, science can be seen as contributing to the understand-ng of what is ‘real’ and hence ‘authentic’. By contrast, scientificallyased interventions are often regarded more ambivalently, hav-
ng the potential to uphold but also to undermine authenticity, forxample through the introduction of new materials and techniqueshat may be seen as ‘unnatural’ and whose long-term consequencesre unknown. However, such generalizations have their limitations.n what follows, we demonstrate how values associated with mate-ial transformation emerge at specific case study sites, and howhese are informed by the nature of those sites and the materialransformation they exhibit. It will be shown that these values, andhe notions of authenticity associated with them, are highly con-extual, depending on the materials involved, the transformationrocesses at work, the wider significance of the site, and the formsf expertise applied.
. Case studies analysis
.1. Dryburgh Abbey, Scottish Borders
Our first case study focuses on Dryburgh Abbey, a site that haseen actively curated as a romantic ruin, intimately associated with
deas of ‘natural decay’. Although this dates back to eighteenth cen-ury interventions, it remains an important aspect of the culturalignificance of the monument and its conservation. As we show,omantic ideas about decay and ruination thus frame the kinds ofcientific research being undertaken, and competing understand-ngs of ‘appropriate’ interventions arising from these findings.
Dryburgh Abbey (Fig. 1) was founded in the 1150s by the Pre-onstratensians on a bend in the River Tweed, approximately
0 km south west of Edinburgh. It is a typical mediaeval, Europeaneligious complex, built in the gothic style using locally sourcedandstone. Its walls are >1 m thick, composed of coursed ashlarn the exteriors, and filled with lime and rubble. Internal surfacesould typically have been lime plastered, but most of this is lostow. Its post-Reformation biography was strongly influenced byavid Erskine, founder of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland,ho curated it in the image of a romantic ruin in the late eigh-
eenth century. It is a scheduled ancient monument in the care ofistoric Scotland (HS) and it is open to the public throughout the
ear.
The partially subterranean Chapter House is one of the few sur-iving roofed parts of the Abbey, although it has a doorless entrancend unglazed windows. This structure has national significance
to the South Transept of the main church, and the Chapter House. The complex iscomposed of local white sandstone; the door is surrounded with side pillars of darkred sandstone (Photograph: Maureen Young, Historic Environment Scotland).
because it contains the largest area of mediaeval polychromatic
oration is very faint. The image also clearly illustrates the greening of the stoneworkcaused by the biological colinisation, that is the subject of periodic cleaning. Thedebate about the control of this surface alteration, through direct environmentalcontrol measures or cleaning, is a key conservation issue at the site (Photograph:Maureen Young, Historic Environment Scotland).
f Cultu
ttdsctcah
pttplmistsieao
apwfthsChaccctp
uttouhtijgsb
afptihab‘rai
R. Douglas-Jones et al. / Journal o
o date have included re-roofing and waterproofing, as well ashe construction of a French drain to ameliorate rising damp. Theecorations and the internal walls suffer nonetheless from coloni-ation by algae and lichens. The ceiling and walls are currentlyleaned using a weak chemical biocidal treatment. This interven-ion is regarded by HS as an acceptable temporary measure toontrol the biocolonisation, which returns requiring biannual re-pplication. Other interventions, such as UV irradiation of the walls,ave proven to be ineffective [30].
More recent scientific research and intervention has focused onreventative conservation. Data loggers have been used to moni-or the RH (>90%) and the movement of condensing air. Based onhese data, the introduction of a door and window glazing has beenroposed, allowing active control of humidity to discourage bio-
ogical growths. To explore the possible effects of environmentalodification, HS conducted an experimental trial during 2012–13
n a small room adjoining the Chapter House. The trial demon-trated that relative humidity (RH) could successfully be controlledhrough this method, but painting conservators, architects and sitetaff have expressed concerns regarding the wider impact of thentervention. These range from the potential risk of promoting saltfflorescence on the plaster itself, to compromising the atmospherend authenticity of the Chapter House and the Abbey. At the timef our research, HS was still considering the best course of action.
Our research consisted of participant observation at the sitend interviews with visitors, HS site staff, a conservation architect,ainting conservators, and the consultant preventive conservatorho was commissioned to look at environmental conditions. Dif-
erent perspectives on the conservation problem emerged. Fromhe point of view of the preventive conservator, ‘incorrect relativeumidity is probably the biggest way of accelerating decay’, a per-pective gained from studying for university degrees in Heritageonservation (Bournemouth) and Sustainable Heritage (UCL). Tois mind, the ‘uniqueness’ of the plaster justifies the significantrchitectural interventions proposed to achieve environmentalontrol. His ‘solution’ focuses on the specific problem of bio-olonisation, and the environmental data he had gathered. Wideroncerns, including the aesthetics, energy, and costs of the archi-ectural interventions, were emphasised by other conservationrofessionals involved.
The painting conservators knew the case well, visiting reg-larly for biocidal treatment, which they regard as a tried andested approach. In contrast, the potential unforeseen impact ofhe preventative measures proposed, in particular the possibilityf increased salt formation due to dehumidification, made themneasy. As one conservator put it: ‘I don’t want to have it all on myead, doing something so major on such a precious thing’. This cau-ion, ‘a conservative’ approach in her terms, reflected her interestn the paintings themselves: ‘I feel like it’s a bit too precious a placeust to do an experiment with, in a way’, she reflected. ‘Often weo looking for answers’, she commented, ‘we tend to think that “ifcience has told you” then it must be right. And in some cases it is,ut not always’.
The HS architect responsible for coordinating decision-makingt the site also considered the scientific results as one of manyactors: ‘I think the architect’s role’, he said ‘is to give the widericture and see whether it fits in with all the other parame-ers one has on that space’. Within this frame of reference, thenterventions required for dehumidification of the Chapter Houseave widespread ramifications for the values associated with it,nd indeed its authenticity. An enclosed staircase would have toe added, but this, he pointed out, would need to be based on
conjecture’. Furthermore, in his view, the scientific data on envi-onmental conditions are a ‘snapshot’ of ‘absolute conditions thatre perceived at one time’, but ‘the trouble is they may not be typ-cal of the other uses that the spaces get. . .so I think they always
ral Heritage 21 (2016) 823–833 827
have to be put in context’. He envisaged that a ‘clean and mod-ern’ glass box would need to be built, an architectural interventionclearly differentiating the intervention from the original fabric. ‘Butsome people would hate that’, he reflected, demonstrating the wayin which various perspectives are weighed during deliberation: ‘Alot of people use that space for weddings and they like the whole-ness of [it] I think; the fact that it has hardly had any intervention atall since the 19th century’. As a result, regular use of biocides wasseen as likely to do less ‘harm’ than dehumidification, because as aform of intervention it is much more contained and has far fewerramifications for other aspects of the building.
Site staff and managers are perhaps most familiar with day-to-day use of the Chapter House. They are also closely involved inits use as a wedding venue, meeting couples and making book-ings. They too emphasised the space as a whole and stressed thatit look as ‘natural’ as possible. They entered into long conversa-tions with the MAV project ethnographer about the implications ofthe architectural solution proposed to control the environmentalconditions; what kind of door would be ‘appropriate’ and ‘authen-tic’?; would it have had metal hinges, and if so, what kind? Theywere concerned about how conservation efforts focused on howthe painted plaster might affect the revenue gained through wed-ding bookings, and thereby the future of the site as a whole. ‘Youcan’t put in a glass door’, commented one seasonal worker, ‘unlessyou have a very good reason. If you closed off the Chapter House,you’d be taking something away from the Abbey – the freedom tojust go in’. For him, this ‘freedom’ allowed visitors to experience‘how it might have been’, and also gave him job satisfaction: ‘It’sthe best bit of my job, going in first thing in the morning’.
Informal interviews with visitors themselves gathered a range ofviews on the possible intervention, the majority of which referen-ced the ruin’s mature wooded setting and the ‘romantic’ aesthetic ofthe site. Tourists moving between the Abbeys of the border regionexpressed positive orientations to decay as ‘natural’, sometimesconnecting this to biological understandings of life. One expresseda desire for Dryburgh to ‘have death in beauty’, and another was forit to ‘be able to decay slowly, without us preventing it’. Biologicalgrowth in most areas of the Abbey was appreciated aesthetically:pointing to growth on the ruin’s walls, one couple pointed out that‘it [the wall and foliage] has been there for hundreds of years and Ithink [. . .] we should keep that’.
The Dryburgh case study reveals a wide range of concernsabout the proposed science-based interventions and their impacton wider values. It shows that different forms of expertise andthe frames of reference associated with them produce differentkinds of valuation, which relate to different ideas about what is‘real’ or ‘authentic’, and hence important, about the site. In the sci-entific measurement of environmental conditions associated withthe biocolonisation of the painted plaster, the environmental con-servator extracts certain materials and variables from the widerconcerns of other heritage professionals. Attempting to reinstatewider relationships, monument staff, architects and painting con-servators work through the wider ramifications of the proposedarchitectural interventions not only for the authenticity and valueof the painted plaster itself, but also the Chapter House and theAbbey as a whole. In assembling these wider relationships, theydraw on different forms of skilled vision, but they also invoke vis-itor perspectives and experiences associated with the notion of aromantic ruin and its aesthetic value, particularly as this appeals tothe wedding market.
The preservation of Dryburgh Abbey as a romantic ruin is asso-ciated by conservation professionals and visitors with distinct
but overlapping understandings of aesthetic value, historic sig-nificance and authenticity. These are associated with a range ofcontext-specific assessments of how heritage science is appliedand whether the solutions associated with it are implemented.
828 R. Douglas-Jones et al. / Journal of Cultural Heritage 21 (2016) 823–833
Fig. 3. Skelmorlie Aisle, Largs, East Ayrshire (1636–38), is the remaining fragmentof a larger, now demolished, church. It now sits in a graveyard in the centre ofLt(
Fnttvjtvtopt
5
diittmth
1fotipsaitdcoaett(
Fig. 4. The interior of the Skelmorlie Aisle. The richly carved renaissance canopy sitsabove the subterranean burial vault of the Montgomeries. The canopy, or loft wasthe private worship space of the Montgomeries. The wooden ceiling above the loftis richly illustrated (1638) with allegorical classical, biblical and landscape scenes,including one of Largs with the full church with the Aisle itself, before demolition(Photograph: Maureen Young, Historic Environment Scotland).
Fig. 5. Decay on the top of the tomb at the Skelmorlie Aisle, Largs. Here the densefine-grained sandstone is suffering from cratering and powdering. At the centre
args, enclosed by the surrounding wall and other buildings. Its highlight lies inside,he dramatically carved 17th C loft and mausoleum of the Montgomerie FamilyPhotograph: Maureen Young, Historic Environment Scotland).
urthermore, the case shows how specific forms of valuation areegotiated through the lens of different kinds of expertise. The atti-udes, values and expectations of ‘the public’ are also important inhis process, frequently projected by professionals as part of theiraluations and debates. Scientific evidence is valued in itself as austification for action, but the tendency to extract data in relationo a specific problem, a kind of ‘snapshot’ in the words of the conser-ation architect, is viewed with caution. Finally, it is evident fromhe data presented that while the professionals involved bring theirwn expertise and evaluations to the case, decision-making takeslace in an institutional context, where the different authorities ofhe participants shape the evaluations involved.
.2. Skelmorlie Aisle, Largs, North Ayrshire
Our second case study focuses on Skelmorlie Aisle, where stoneecay is attributed little value in terms of patina and the authentic-
ty of age. Instead it is seen as malign if poorly understood, and itsnfluence needs to be arrested. Yet, as we show, material authen-icity is still privileged and heritage science is being deployed tory to understand the material processes at work and the environ-
ental conditions informing them. The case allows us to explorehe distinct, yet relational, values associated with different kinds oferitage science.
Skelmorlie Aisle (Fig. 3) in Largs, North Ayrshire, was built in the630s by Sir Robert Montgomerie of Skelmorlie to provide a placeor private worship and burial. Originally the north transept of Largsld church, it remained as a free-standing mausoleum structure inhe historic graveyard after the rest of the church was demolishedn 1802. The loft of the Montgomerie tomb within the Aisle com-rises a richly carved renaissance style canopy, in dense pale goldandstone, which is raised over a partially sunk burial vault andpproached by steps with a balustraded parapet (Fig. 4). The Aisletself has a wooden barrel-vaulted ceiling, painted with quotes fromhe Geneva Bible and rich allegorical landscapes by James Stalker,ating from 1638 ([31]: Fig. 5). Together the carved stone tombanopy and the painted wooden ceiling represent perhaps the mostutstanding examples of such work in Scotland. The Aisle is both
scheduled ancient monument and a Historic Scotland (HS) Prop-
rty in Care. Nevertheless, visitor numbers are considerably lowerhan Dryburgh, in part because access is more restricted. Keys forhe graveyard and the Aisle must be obtained from Largs Museumopen 2–5pm between May and September).
top right of the image, an environmental logging device can be seen attached tothe structure, recording conditions of Temperature and Relative Humidity near towhere the damage is occurring (Photograph: Maureen Young, Historic EnvironmentScotland).
f Cultu
tctcftIbeasbaa
dttmtPcprtiicsah
sttpte
rw“ppurddapdto‘ppaend
hTsm
R. Douglas-Jones et al. / Journal o
The ceiling paintings are in a good state of preservation. Theomb canopy is faring less well. Although the upper stonework isrisp, the lower parts appear badly decayed. Granular disintegra-ion and exfoliation (Fig. 5) have been evident since the mid 20thentury, manifesting as craters, flaking and powdering on the sur-ace. Indeed, records show that in 1940 powdered surfaces werereated with Magnesium Fluorosilicate with little evident success.n places, a thin crust has formed, with disintegration continuingeneath. So far, the decay has been attributed to high moisture lev-ls and possible salt contamination. There are also damp patchesnd salt efflorescence on the walls of the Aisle, which are con-tructed from course ashlar. The south wall is a particular concern,ecause it originally consisted of an internal wall with a pointedrch that was blocked and rendered (‘harled’ in Scotland) externallyfter the rest of the church was demolished.
At the time of this project, HS had been investigating the stoneecay for five years, drawing on the expertise of two conserva-ors (one stone conservator and one preventative conservator) andwo heritage scientists (both with geological training). Moisture
apping of the tomb and its canopy using microwave sensors andhermography showed no clear pattern related to rising damp.etrographic analysis of the stone revealed it to be very dense –onfounding expectations that decay might be associated with highorosity and low strength. XRD analysis was applied to salt efflo-escence to explore pollutants and the presence of different saltypes. Based on these results, it is apparent that the stone decays not directly related to the effects of moisture or salts. The her-tage scientists involved have also considered the possibility thatondensation events are destabilising pyritic inclusions, producingulphuric acid, which is then dissolving calcium and iron carbon-te in the stone. As part of the current research, temperature andumidity in the Aisle have been monitored using data loggers.
The root cause of the stone decay on the surface of the tombtructure remains a puzzle. The isolated character of the decay, andhe manner in which it eludes a clear diagnosis, places conserva-ors in long-term dialogue with material scientists, geologists andreventive conservators. Efforts to find out what has been causinghe flaking of the stone demonstrate how different professionalsngage with material transformation in different ways.
The materials scientists focus directly on the process of mate-ial transformation taking place, extracting the problem from itsider historic context and associated values. One of them explains:
If you can find out what’s causing the decay and stop it hap-ening, that’s not going to change its current value, it’s going torevent loss of value in the future”. The pursuit of knowledge andnderstanding also privileges certain kinds of analytical techniqueelated to the material itself; in this case, whilst the decayed pow-ered stone is useful, core samples are preferred. However, suchestructive sampling would require consent from heritage man-gers within HS and arouses anxieties. As the stone conservatorut it: ‘if you don’t know what material you’re dealing with youon’t know how you’re going to treat it’, but sampling is ‘destruc-ive’, and has limits. ‘It will tell us something about the petrographyf the material and the structure of it and its contents’, she noted,
but it doesn’t necessarily tell us an awful lot about the behaviouralroperties’, which are particularly relevant to understanding therocess of decay. Furthermore, mobilising values surrounding theuthentic historic material in contrast to scientific values, you couldnd up with monuments that ‘look like wasps nests; you’ve goto stone left, you’re doing far more damage than you can possiblyo good’.
The issue of sampling highlights the values associated with
eritage science itself, as well as with material transformation.here are also concerns about the unknown consequences ofcience-based interventions especially those associated with newaterials, as the stone conservator commented:
ral Heritage 21 (2016) 823–833 829
We are very reluctant to do things involving applying chemicalsunnecessarily. Especially things that are irreversible, if we don’tunderstand the long term effects well enough. There are so manyexamples in the past that have turned out badly that were wellintentioned at the time.
Yet the role of heritage science in the UK has increased. The stoneconservator again highlighting the complex interplay betweenexperience, judgement and evidence, said: ‘In the past, [we had theattitude], it’s always worked before why wouldn’t it work now?Now it’s much more “Well, have you got the scientific evidence,and what does that tell us”?’ The problem is that the evidence, inthis and many other cases, is far from incontrovertible.
Hypotheses about the mechanisms of decay at work on theMausoleum emerged from – and were disproved by – techniques,such as microwave surveys, thermal surveys, or building surveys.In their turn, they raised the possibility of interventions that couldlead to further material transformation, as in the case of the Dry-burgh Chapter House. An early hypothesis was that salts werebeing drawn in from the ground through the crypt walls up intothe monument. The stone conservator noted that the interventionsrequired to alleviate it would be, in her terms, ‘very involved’. Newdrains and a damp proof membrane, possibly even ‘disturbing thearchaeology’, would require support from the HS architect and her-itage manager, something serious she associated with justificationsand permissions. In her view, scientific research provided leveragewith other professionals in the process who could authorise deci-sions and strategies. The heritage scientist working closely with heragreed: ‘it’s the core of [the] decision: otherwise you don’t haveanything to discuss – a problem without a solution’.
As a result of this desire for evidence, scientific analysis wasbrought into the project in a range of other ways beyond samp-ling. One key data set was collected by the environmental dataloggers monitoring the internal environment in which the memo-rial stands. This was the domain of the preventive conservators,who have, as at Dryburgh, proposed environmental modificationto avoid condensation events. Temporary low-level heating and ablind against solar gain have been introduced to assess the effecton the environment, essentially to investigate whether reducingthe humidity and stabilising the temperature will diminish decay.However, this in turn raises concerns for the architect about theimpact on the walls of the Aisle itself; would drying out the inte-rior simply draw more moisture in through the walls and increasesalt efflorescence on them? And he asked, what of the unfore-seen impact on the ceiling paintings? Relative significance basedon a range of values is thus brought to bear on potential solutionsto the particular area of material transformation subject to scien-tific research. The carved Mausoleum structure is generally givengreater value, than the walls if not the ceiling painting. Yet theimpact of interventions oriented to the former on the latter stillrequires evaluation and judgement.
Understandings of the specific significance of Skelmorlie relateto context-specific evaluations of the problems and possibilitiesassociated with various forms of scientific understanding and inter-vention. In contrast to Dryburgh, a romantic ruin, the conservationteam do not deem the material processes at work, in this case saltefflorescence, peeling crusts and stone decay, to possess aestheticmerit or ‘age value’, either from their own perspectives or thosethey project onto various publics. Instead, decay of the tomb canopyis understood as a problem in the function of the building that needsto be resolved to preserve the elaborate carving. Ideas about pub-lic values figure less prominently in negotiations at Skelmorlie, but
they are still implicated. As the current preventative conservatorobserved, an ‘ideal’ environment would be a museum where allenvironmental factors could be controlled, but this would not bean ‘ethical’ decision, since it conflicted with the values placed on
830 R. Douglas-Jones et al. / Journal of Cultural Heritage 21 (2016) 823–833
Fig. 6. The west fac ade and the entrance to the Hill House, Helensburgh, Argyll andBute (C.R. Mackintosh, architect, 1904–5). This view was taken in 2013 some monthsaat
pcralsc
5
moimvi‘m
f3b(BwAkpHdlefi
Wartm
Fig. 7. Example of the cracking in the Portland Cement render of the Hill House,
fter the exterior Portland Cement render had been painted to unify the appearancend improve resistance to environmental attack. The Clyde estuary can be seen inhe background (Photograph: John Hughes).
ublic access, something that the architect and heritage manageronfirmed. Finally, we observe again that conservation and mate-ial scientists work in an arena where permissions, jurisdictionsnd different perspectives on the nature of a conservation prob-em co-exist. In this case, it is the values associated with heritagecience itself, and the tensions that can arise between science andonservation, which are brought into sharp focus.
.3. The Hill House, Helensburgh, Argyll and Bute
Our final case study is Hill House, an example of the kind ofodernist architecture, which is an increasing concern for heritage
rganisations. It presents a specific set of conservation issues relat-ng to the distinctive materials used, and the extent to which a
onument-derived conservation philosophy of ‘minimum inter-ention’ is an appropriate response. As we show, these issuesmpact on the application of heritage science, in a context whereauthenticity’ is less a matter of material originality and more com-
only associated with a specific architectural vision.The Hill House (Fig. 6) sits on an elevated, exposed, southwest-
acing coastal site above the town of Helensburgh, approximately0 km west of Glasgow. Designed and constructed during 1903–4y the Glasgow-based architect Charles Rennie Mackintosh1868–1928), it was commissioned by Scottish publisher Walterlackie, as his family home. Mackintosh was a modern architectith a distinctive style variously associated with the Arts and Crafts,rt Nouveau and European secessionist movements. He is alsonown for design and furnishing of the interior of his buildings, inartnership with his wife Margaret Macdonald, as was the case atill House. Mackintosh’s status has increased significantly in recentecades, meaning that his surviving work now attracts the highest
evels of statutory protection. The Hill House was designated a Cat-gory A Listed Building in 1971 and donated to the National Trustor Scotland (NTS) in 1982. It has a resident property manager, ands open to the public between April and October.
Mackintosh was keen to apply new materials in his buildings.hilst the Hill House has solid masonry walls made from brick
nd soft red sandstone, the exterior is rendered in grey-colouredoughcast render, or “harl”, containing Portland Cement (PC). At theime, PC had gained currency and was promoted as the strongest,
ost waterproof material available [32]. This claim persuaded
Helensburgh. Cracking such as this allows water ingress that threatens the historicMacintosh-Macdonald designed interior decoration and furniture (Photograph:John Hughes).
Mackintosh to use it in his pursuit of novel, modern design values,allowing him to dispense with traditional water-shedding fea-tures, such as wall copes at gables and window cills. However, theinflexibility of the PC-based render, compared with a lime-basedalternative, has resulted in extensive cracking (Fig. 7). PC’s lowwater permeability and high capillary retention traps any wateringress that occurs through the cracks causing further deteriora-tion of the render, exacerbated by freeze-thaw action. In places,moisture has penetrated the whole wall, putting the Mackintosh-Macdonald interior at risk by increasing RH and condensation,resulting in mould growth. There have also been outbreaks of dryrot. Recent scientific investigations have focused on investigatingthe condition of the fabric of the building using materials analysis(petrographic thin sections and XRD) and thermography, alongsidetraditional engineering and condition surveying. The internal envi-ronment is being monitored with Hanwell recorders documentingtemperature and RH in several rooms.
The NTS are in the process of examining the history of repairsand the scope of possible future interventions ([32]). Their deliber-ations centre on the status of the render, particularly the extent oforiginal fabric remaining, and the technical repair challenges posedby previous interventions. In terms of conservation philosophy,there are questions regarding authenticity and whether this liesin the original fabric, or in the other aspects, such as the building’sdesign and Mackintosh’s intentions. During the 1980s, a hydropho-bic silane was used with limited success, both as a surface waterrepellent coating and as a consolidant in conjunction with carbonrod ties in the interface between the PC harl and the degradingunderlying sandstone ([32]: section 3.1). Current thinking ques-tions the appropriateness of this former conservation strategy,since it used an irreversible experimental approach to preserve thefabric through introduction of a different manufactured material([32]: 75). There are also concerns about whether the use of thesilane consolidant has exacerbated problems with the harl, lead-ing to further problems of water retention. Evidence now suggeststhat a considerable amount of the original render had in fact alreadybeen replaced during the Hill House’s life cycle, perhaps as muchas 80%.
These discoveries also come at time when conservation atti-tudes towards twentieth-century buildings and modern materials
are changing, not least as a result of the Madrid Document [33]. Asthe regional Lead Surveyor on the NTS Buildings Team commentedduring a project interview, the kinds of problems faced by the HillHouse are
f Cultu
imwtItaPHbta
huiuhtveoea
cmromvtoi‘ctaorspw
itTdtnS
R. Douglas-Jones et al. / Journal o
an international issue, and that’s the right sort of level that thesedebates really need to happen. . .to face up to the fact that theremaybe has to be a slightly different approach in some cases,when it comes to 20th Century buildings, you know, they can’tall be treated like Dryburgh Abbey where every single stone hasto stay in exactly the same place forever you know. [. . .] Materialhas to function.
The figure of an important historic architect linked to Hill Houses also a distinguishing factor, which means that material transfor-
ation is subject to a different set of valuations. ‘To be consistentith the Mackintosh design intention’, he remarked ‘you have to
ry and maintain something that’s looking quite crisp and sharp’.n the light of this, solutions are being sought that aim to preservehe modern silhouette and ‘unity of style’ in line with Mackintosh’srchitectural vision, even if that means sacrificing or replacing theC render. Indeed, Wright ([32]: 94) remarks that ‘perhaps the Hillouse ‘unity of style’ might be considered as the primary value toe preserved’ (original emphasis). Here, then, aesthetic and archi-ectural values are privileged over authenticity of materials, withuthenticity being relocated in relation to Mackintosh’s vision.
Aesthetic values and Mackintosh’s intentions also featureeavily in data on visitor experiences and guide perspectives. Vol-nteer guides regularly share their knowledge of the house and
ts history with visitors. During interviews, they reported feelingnder pressure from visitors whose only experience of Mackintoshad been through glossy coffee-table books. Visitors were some-imes disappointed or angered by peeling paint, discolouration, orisible cracks in the external harl of the house. Having come withxpectations regarding the ‘modernity’ of Mackintosh’s work, signsf age are considered ‘inappropriate’ by many. As one materials sci-ntist, with extensive experience of building conservation as wells sample analysis, noted
[visitors often] want to see what Mackintosh perceived andwhat he delivered, because that’s what they’ve been led toexpect. So when they see decay, they see discolouration, theysee the effects of water penetration, the first response is “nobodyis looking after this”.
The Hill House case study provides an apt contrast to the otherase studies, reinforcing our argument that values associated withaterial transformation are context-dependent and emerge in
elation to specific buildings and monuments. At Hill House, signsf material transformation and age value conflict with the aestheticodernity of its design for many heritage professionals and indeed
isitors. As a consequence, for many, conservation of the design ofhe building is deemed more important than preservation of theriginal PC render; material authenticity is thus displaced. Projectnterviews explored the contextual meanings of ‘authenticity’ andtruthfulness’, revealing that differing understandings of these con-epts inform distinct approaches. Volunteer staff who worked athe Hill House, for example, were concerned with preserving theppearance of the building, with less concern for the ‘authentic mix’f Portland Cement. Several staff remarked that recent painting andepair of the render compromises authenticity. In their view a full-cale replacement would better ‘serve the interests of house and theublic’ by replacing a ‘failed experiment’ with a material that wouldithstand the driven rain of the Hill House’s exposed position.
The Hill House also highlights how the history of a building andts previous interventions, as well as historical shifts in conserva-ion priorities, informs values and actions in the present [34,35].he value assigned to the material fabric of the Hill House ren-
er has shifted over time. In previous conservation campaigns,he values associated with what was thought to be the origi-al fabric justified experimental intervention to keep it in place.ubsequently, these valuations have been questioned, and doubts
ral Heritage 21 (2016) 823–833 831
raised about the originality of the fabric. Hill House also demon-strates how conservation interventions are increasingly requiredto take account of previous treatments, whose behaviour wasnot anticipated and may not be predictable [3]. This encouragescaution amongst conservation professionals towards new scientif-ically developed products as they are exposed to the detrimentaleffects of well-intentioned historical interventions. Finally, the HillHouse case reveals how the scope of scientific intervention – asa problem-solving activity – may be determined in advance, byother formulations of what the problem is. Priorities like “preservethe original fabric” or “preserve the artistic vision of the architect”define the parameters (and goals) of scientific research, and thelikely acceptability of solutions.
6. Conclusions: implications and recommendations
At the outset of this article, we argued that if the aim ofconservation is to sustain and shape the values associated withheritage objects, there is a need for greater attention to the relation-ship between material transformation, value, and heritage science.Indeed, radical changes in how significance and authenticity areconceived in conservation philosophy, with increasing attentionto intangible aspects of heritage, have created a pressing need fornew research on the role of materiality [17,18,21]. Yet, in manyareas of heritage practice, the conservation of material fabric andthe consideration of significance, value and authenticity proceedin a parallel, at best loosely connected fashion. The UK House ofLords Science and Technology Committee’s Report on Science andHeritage [2] is a good example. The Report vociferously advocatesthe development and application of heritage science, but, althoughit defines conservation in terms of sustaining the values associatedwith heritage ([2]: 11–12), much of its focus is on preserving mate-rial fabric. Consequently, there is little attention to the importantquestion of how the application of science intersects with values. Inrecent work, Cassar ([26]: 9) has emphasised the ‘symbiotic’ rela-tionship between material transformation, intervention and value,and called for a deeper understanding of what she calls the ‘mate-rial/cultural’ interface. We endorse this call, but we argue thatattempts to quantify, categorise, or systematise this relationship(e.g. [34,36]) are inevitably limited to generalizations that skatethe surface of the complex dynamics involved.
Our interdisciplinary research reveals that values associatedwith material transformation emerge in particular contexts,informed by differing constellations of materials, processes, prac-tices, visitor expectations, use patterns, building types and formsof expertise. In some contexts (Dryburgh Abbey), weatheringand decay can accrue ‘age value’, marking the passage of time,contributing to the experience of authenticity, and creating aes-thetically pleasing ‘character’, ‘patina’ and ‘ruination’. In othercases, material transformation and decay are associated with a lossof value and authenticity, either directly through loss of materialitself (Skelmorlie Aisle), or because of the wider implications ofdeterioration in part of the historic fabric for the authenticity andvalue of the monument or building as a whole (The Hill House).Just as the values associated with material transformation emergein particular contexts, so does the application of heritage scienceto understanding, controlling and arresting material transforma-tion. It is not just a case of identifying pre-existing values that theninform how ‘problems’ are framed, and when and how heritagescience is applied. Rather, the application of science in heritagecontexts is embedded in dynamic modes of valuation. The use of
scientific techniques to measure, understand and control mate-rial transformation is informed by these values, but these veryprocesses also have the potential to change those values. As onematerials scientist put it, “there isn’t a generalisation. Everything is
8 f Cultu
ucaasoap
Fitcbtitiocpa
rfotu9lietfoeccaagoociitatrwwot
A
Ste(ieAo
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[28] D.H. Taplin, S. Scheld, S.M. Low, Rapid ethnographic assessment in urban parks:
32 R. Douglas-Jones et al. / Journal o
nique in buildings”. He was referring to combinations of materials,raftsmanship, weathering cycles, location and climate, which arelways specific to particular situations. In the same way, the valuesssociated with material transformation are not only historicallypecific [19], but also context-dependent, affected by – amongstther things – the nature of the monument, the materials involved,ttitudes towards risk, modes of expertise, changing conservationhilosophy, institutional priorities and expectations.
The implications of this research can be summarised as follows.irst, material transformation, including decay, does not merelympact on heritage significance. It is an integral aspect of the valueshat underpin significance. Second, these values are dynamic andontextual. They may vary over time, between and within sites, andetween different heritage professionals and stakeholders, in wayshat cannot be determined in advance. Third, the application of her-tage science to measuring, understanding and modifying materialransformation is embedded in these values; it both informs ands informed by them. Fourth, integrated qualitative research meth-ds can increase our understanding of these important, site-specificonditions and processes, and thus contribute to more nuanced androductive applications of heritage science, sensitive to the valuesssociated with heritage sites.
In light of these points, we recommend that further qualitativeesearch is conducted on the relationship between material trans-ormation, authenticity, value and heritage science. The tendencyf heritage science to focus on a specific material or environmen-al process and to extract data in relation to this, even settingp controlled laboratory experiments, means that Cassar’s ([26]:) ‘material/cultural interface’ is always in danger of being over-
ooked and this requires further attention. Importantly, however,t will not be possible to identify rules or models that can be gen-ralised, because the values and qualities associated with materialransformation are complex, situated and contextual. We there-ore recommend that qualitative methods, such as participantbservation, interviewing and focus groups, should be routinelymployed to explore the site-specific values and qualities asso-iated with material transformation. Data from such researchould then be taken into account when planning interventionsnd assessing their future impact. Changes in training, expertisend institutional cultures will also be necessary to effectively inte-rate qualitative methods in such a routine fashion. Therefore,ur final recommendation is that forums are created to facilitatepen-ended discussion of such issues amongst heritage scientists,onservators, managers and other heritage professionals. Whilstt has long been recognised that cross-disciplinary collaborations crucial in heritage management and conservation, the promo-ion of inter-disciplinary dialogue, especially across the sciencesnd humanities, is a less commonplace, but increasingly impor-ant measure. Combined with such events, further interdisciplinaryesearch of the kind central to the MAV project, involving personnelith both scientific and humanities backgrounds will help build aorking environment where there is a more holistic consideration
f the cultural ramifications of scientific interventions alongsideheir material effects.
cknowledgements
The article is based on research conducted for the AHRC/EPSRCcience and Heritage Programme Project Materiality, Authen-icity and Value in the Historic Environment: a study of theffects of material transformation and scientific interventionAH/K006002/1). It also draws on research conducted for the Enact-
ng Conservation: the role of technology, scientific expertise andvidence in producing the past project, part funded by a Britishcademy/Leverhulme Small Grant (SG122587). We are grateful tour project partners, Historic Scotland (now Historic Environment
[
ral Heritage 21 (2016) 823–833
Scotland) and the National Trust for Scotland. Participants in ourproject workshop contributed to the development of the argumentspresented in this article. Finally, we would like to thank staff at ourcase study sites and our research participants, without their timeand generosity the research would not have been possible. Gratefulthanks are extended to Dr Maureen Young (Historic EnvironmentScotland) for the photographs used in Figs 1–5.
References
[1] S. Jones, T. Yarrow, Crafting authenticity: an ethnography of conservationpractice, J. Mater. Cult. 18 (1) (2013) 3–26.
[2] House of Lords Science and Technology Select Committee, Enquiry Reporton Science and Heritage. HL 256, The Stationery Office Limited, London,2006.
[3] J. Williams, The Role of Science in the Management of the UK’s Heritage,National Heritage Science Strategy, 2009 http://www.heritagescienceforum.org.uk/strategy.php (accessed 02.06.15).
[4] S. Munoz-Vinas, Contemporary Theory of Conservation, Routledge, London,2004.
[5] G.G. Amoroso, V. Fassina, Stone Decay and Conservation, Elsevier, Amster-dam/New York, 1983.
[6] G. Toracca, Lectures on Materials Science for Architectural Conservation, TheGetty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles, 2009.
[7] Historic Scotland, Investigations into the Control of Biofilm Damage with Rel-evance to Built Heritage, Historic Scotland, Edinburgh, 2006.
[8] H.A. Viles, Implications of future climate change for stone deterioration, Geol.Soc. Lond. Spec. Publ. 205 (2002) 407–418.
[9] P. Brimblecombe, C.M. Grossi, Damage to buildings from future climate andpollution, APT Bull. J. Preserv. Technol. 38 (2/3) (2007) 13–18.
10] M. Cassar, M.D. Kandiah (Eds.), Development of Science and Research Applied toCultural Heritage, 1947–2007, AHRC/EPSRC Science and Heritage Programme,2015.
11] The HEROMAT project, Development of Protective and Consolidative Materi-als with Added Function & Pilot Production, WP 4 & 7 Summary Brochure,Provincial Institute for the Protection of Cultural Monuments, Vojvod-ina, Serbia, 2015, Available at: http://www.heromat.com/images/documents/results/heromat brosura wp4-and-wp7.pdf (accessed 31.07.15).
12] P. Baglioni, R. Giorgi, Soft and hard nanomaterials for restoration and conser-vation of cultural Heritage, Soft Matter 2 (2006) 293–303.
13] M. de la Torre, Values and heritage conservation, Herit. Soc. 60 (2) (2013)155–166.
14] J. Hutchings, M. Cassar, A soft system framework for the conservation manage-ment of material culture heritage, Syst. Pract. Act. Res. 19 (2006) 201–216.
15] E. Pye, D. Sully, Evolving challenges, developing skills, Conservator 30 (2007)19–37.
16] E. Avrami, R. Mason, M. de la Torre, Values and Heritage Conservation. ResearchReport, The Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles, 2000.
17] S. Jones, Experiencing authenticity at heritage sites: some implications for her-itage management and conservation, Conserv. Manag. Archaeol. Sites 12 (2)(2009) 133–147.
18] G. Araoz, Conservation philosophy and its development. Changing understand-ings of authenticity and significance, Herit. Soc. 6 (21) (2013) 44–154.
19] D. Lowenthal, The Past is a Foreign Country, Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, 1985.
20] A. Riegl, The Modern Cult of Monuments: Its Character and Origins. Reprintedin Oppositions 25, Rizzoli, New York, 1982[1902].
21] C. Holtorf, On pastness: a reconsideration of materiality in archaeological objectauthenticity, Anthropol. Q. 86 (2013) 427–444.
22] A. Unnerbäck, Historico-cultural evaluation: a necessary basis for the selection,care and documentation of historic buildings, in: J. Ballester (Ed.), SustainedCare of the Cultural Heritage against Pollution, Council of Europe Publishing,Strasbourg, 2000, pp. 29–38.
23] C. DeSilvey, Observed decay: telling stories with mutable things, J. Mater. Cult.11 (3) (2006) 318–338.
24] C. DeSilvey, T. Edensor, Reckoning with ruins, Prog. Hum. Geogr. 37 (4) (2012)465–485.
25] H. Clifford, The problem of patina: thoughts on changing attitudes to oldand new things, in: A. Richmond, A. Bracker (Eds.), Conservation: Principles,Dilemmas, Uncomfortable Truths, Butterworth-Heinemann, London, 2009, pp.125–128.
26] M. Cassar, Sustainable heritage: challenges and strategies for the twenty-firstcentury, J. Preserv. Technol. 40 (1) (2009) 3–11.
27] S.M. Low, Anthropological-ethnographic methods for the assessment of cul-tural values in heritage conservation, in: M. de la Torre (Ed.), Assessing theValues of Cultural Heritage, The Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles, 2002,pp. 31–49.
a case study of Independence National Historic Park, Hum. Organ. 61 (1) (2002)80–93.
29] R. Mason, Assessing values in conservation planning, in: M. de la Torre (Ed.),Assessing the Values of Cultural Heritage, The Getty Conservation Institute, LosAngeles, 2002, pp. 5–30.
30] R. Thomson, An Investigation into the Control of Microbiological Growth onSemi-Enclosed Historic Buildings and Monuments. Masters Report, Centre forSustainable Heritage, University College London, 2008.
31] A. Callaghan, The Ceiling of Skelmorlie Aisle: A narrative articulated in paint(PhD Thesis), Glasgow University, 2013.
32] A. Wright, The Hill House, Helensburgh: Evaluation of Condition and Signifi-cance, National Trust for Scotland, 2012.
33] ICOMOS, Madrid Document, 2011.
[
ral Heritage 21 (2016) 823–833 833
34] J. Taylor, M. Cassar, Representation and intervention: the symbiotic relation-ship of conservation and value, Stud. Conserv. 53 (Suppl. 1) (2008) 7–11.
35] J.C. Wells, The plurality of truth in culture, context and heritage: a (mostly) post-
structuralist analysis of urban conservation charters, City Time 3 (2) (2007)1–14.
36] B.M. Fielden, A short introduction to the conservation of cultural property inEurope, in: J. Rosval, S. Alebury (Eds.), Air Pollution and Conservation: Safe-guarding our Architectural Heritage, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1998, pp. 55–76.
